On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Bill Nottingham wrote: > John Poelstra (poelstra@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > > Okay, maybe that is too "corporate speak" :) > > > > Up until now the rationale I've seen has mostly been "we should do this > > because Fedora should do all of its own stuff" or "if we had a separate > > instance everything would be better". So far I haven't found any of these > > arguments to be compelling enough in the face of the disruption it would > > cause to Fedora and Red Hat. > > > > Would we be creating more new problems than we are solving? > > Benefits: > > - ease of incorporating new upstream versions > - with those versions, easier to move bugs and link them to other > upstream bug trackers > - able to wipe out old bugs > - removal of various non-upstream 'features' that RH uses that Fedora > doesn't need > > Demerits: > > - RH developers no longer have one-stop shopping > - would need RH changes to support moving bugs to RH bugzilla > - would need to run our own instance > - would wipe out old bugs > > That's my 10-second view. Just so I know (and feel free to contact me off list) but does anyone here know exactly how far off RH's bugzilla is from upstream and why the patches have not been accpeted by upstream? -Mike _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
